Leadership 2.0

I started blogging in 1998—before it was called blogging. I simply posted new articles to my web site, because I noticed that people would come back if the content kept changing. But it was a hassle. It wasn’t easy to change the content or structure of your site. Everything was fairly static.

But in 2002–2003, things began to change. They started becoming more dynamic. In fact, in December 2003, Eric Knorr, executive editor of InfoWorld, coined the phrase “Web 2.0” to describe the movement to a different kind of Web experience that was more focused on the user rather than the publisher.

According to Wikipedia, Web 2.0:

refers to a perceived second generation of web development and design, that facilitates communication, secure information sharing, interoperability, and collaboration on the World Wide Web. Web 2.0 concepts have led to the development and evolution of web-based communities, hosted services, and applications such as social-networking sites, video-sharing sites, wikis, blogs, and folksonomies.

I think that a similar paradigm shift has occurred in our understanding of leadership. Our interaction with the Web and the expectations it creates have shaped what we expect from our leaders.
 
Therefore, if leaders are going to be effective with the current generation of Internet-savvy web-users, they must shift their leadership style. I call this Leadership 2.0. Here’s how it compares to Leadership 1.0:

1. Leadership 2.0 embraces change. Like Web 1.0, old-style leadership was fairly static. Leaders resisted change and were more focused on preserving the status quo. However, Leadership 2.0 embraces change. New-style leaders are on the cutting edge of experimentation. If something doesn’t work, they change course quickly. They are more concerned about driving the right outcomes than maintaining business-as-usual.
2. Leadership 2.0 demonstrates transparency. Old-style leaders were opaque. They wouldn’t tell you anything they didn’t have to tell you. They kept themselves shrouded in mystery. (Think of “Oz.”) New-style leaders are open and transparent. They let you see them for who they are—warts and all. They risk self-disclosure, preferring to acknowledge the truth of who they are rather than pretend to be something they are not.
3. Leadership 2.0 celebrates dialogue. Old-style leaders delivered a monologue. They did all the talking. The fact that they were the boss was proof enough that they were smarter than everyone else n the room. New-style leaders listen more than they talk. They ask questions. They lead powerful conversations. Why? Because they know that “all of us are smarter than some of us” to quote James Surowiecki in The Wisdom of Crowds.
4. Leadership 2.0 employs collaboration. Old-style leaders were competitive. They held all the cards close to their vest. They didn’t “play well with others.” They refused to help anyone they perceived as the competition, even if they were theoretically on the same team. New-style leaders are all about teamwork. They are inclusive in the way they lead, drawing you in and making you feel that you are doing something great—together. They enroll others as “colleagues” and “partners.”
5. Leadership 2.0 practices sharing. Old-style leaders hoarded their resources—their contacts, their insights, their time, energy and money. They played a zero-sum game. They didn’t believe they could be generous without depleting their own pile of stuff. New-style leaders are just the opposite. They have an abundance-mentality. They freely share their resources, believing that “there is plenty more where that came from.” They know “it is more blessed to give than to receive” (see Acts 20:35)
6. Leadership 2.0 welcomes engagement. Old-style leaders were aloof and detached. They didn’t expect to get their hands dirty by actually talking to customers and other constituents. They stood above the fray, dispassionately observing the masses. New-style leaders don’t think in terms of hierarchy, as if something is beneath them. They jump in with both feet, happily and passionately engaging with anyone and everyone.
7. Leadership 2.0 builds community. Old-style leaders were rugged individualists. They pulled themselves up by their own bootstraps. They didn’t need anyone else. They could do it all themselves, “thank you very much.” New-style leaders, on the other hand, enjoy working with others and building a sustainable community that will go on long after they are gone. They get great satisfaction from working together rather than working alone.

Leadership 2.0 represents a quantum leap forward in effectiveness. It enables leaders to connect with their followers in ways that Leadership 1.0 could never do.

The irony is that this may not be so new after all. Jesus Himself was this very kind of leader. But that is a post for another day.

Question: what aspects of Leadership 2.0 are the easiest for you to embrace? What are the most difficult?

 

7 Comments »

1. For me, the community aspect is both the hardest and easiest. It’s easy because of all the fancy pants tools available now and the general openness from others for building community. Plus, I love doing it. I’m social by nature.

   The hardest part is in letting go and letting what I’m doing become bigger than myself. I’m a control freak, and I want to have my hands in everything. It’s difficult for me to delegate and open source everything instead of just the things I want to share.

   I’m looking forward to reading through some of the other responses on this one. Great to see you here, Michael.

   -Marshall Jones Jr.

   P. S. I know the way we’re leading is all new from a tech side, but in many ways it’s interesting to watch leadership return to it’s roots. I mean, back when we led and discipled one on one, we were all about the “2.0” style, even back in the day.

   It’s like, “We know this - what we don’t is remember.”

   Comment by bondChristian - Feb 01, 2010 @ 11:09 AM

2. The hardest part of your suggested leadership model is sort of a few of them combined…dialogue, collaboration and community all seem to center around the concept of a team. To me this is great and insanely frustrating at the same time. I love having input from others, but it can be discouraging when everyone has another idea about how to do what you are doing better. I’m not beyond better ideas, but at some point the ideas become redundant, not better and more time consuming than it is worth to even listen. I’m not adverse to change or anything like that, in fact I am energized by it, but at what point does all of this dialogue and collaboration simply become a complaint department? Maybe I just have a handful of poor volunteers?  I love them and like working with them, for the most part, but at some point I’m the one that makes the decisions and tells everyone which way to go. I don’t have a problem delegating and brainstorming with these leaders… I’m just tired of the standstill of your idea-my idea…

   Comment by pastoraaron - Feb 08, 2010 @ 12:13 PM

3. The 7 points you make sound alot like how our Presidency is run in general terms. I believe in these points but at the end of the day, your team of people need to know that YOU are the leader and YOU as the leader will make the hardline decisions to better the people. Believe it or not, people want a leader and need a leader to set the bar of standards and excellence. Just like the people in the White House serve at the pleasure of the President, so too do teams and departments and groups of people in the business world desire to serve. So while collaboration is great and sense of community ideals and all the rest of the 7 points are just, at the end of the day, Leadership 2.0 needs to be identity of ONE, the LEADER!

   Comment by Xavier Ortiz - Feb 11, 2010 @ 12:18 PM

4. I am older than a lot of you. This is not new, this was actually the way of the generation before the “me” generation. Everything was a process. It was not so much about the end product, it was about the process….now we have all the electronics, etc. to add to that “process”. So many people can communicate and have a say so in the” process”. I have also been reading about how the U.S. Constitution came about and originally they thought they wanted the “process” or complete democracy,but found that this really lead to anarchy. So we now have a 3 pronged republic so there is a way to gather all information and let the people have their say. People think that we are a democracy, but we are a republic with representation because a real democracy leads to anarchy or tryanny because the people become frustrated or abused by so much “processing”.  I have also had a small hand in leading and it seems that the persons in blog 2 and 3 have also done some leading and have found that you do need a leader, no matter how everyone wants to be in the “process”.  So I guess by experience I agree with 2 and 3…there has to be a leader.  My question is, are you saying there is something new, there does not have to be a leader?  Or are you saying the leader is more involved with the process and is inspiring the people to follow by being more in the process. Like a facilitor? I have noticed that some people facilitate very well, but they do not seem to be able to lead to an end result or product or an accomplishment. Different style, different gift than leading. Important but different.I think a real leader can lead without even being given the title. The leader is the person with the vision,with the drive and the ability to inspire others to an end “product or goal.” When a leader is hooked up with the leading of the Holy Spirit to accomplish a task, there is nothing on earth that is more inspirational.  What do you think? Thanks for your work.

   Comment by Susan - Feb 11, 2010 @ 03:25 PM

5. Being a new style leader, its hard for peple with the old style embedded into them to understand and appreciate. This takes some working through as most people are used to the old as thats what they have seen modeled and works to a degree.

   Comment by steve lee - Feb 12, 2010 @ 12:24 AM

6. The biggest piece of this puzzle that defines any leader in 1.0 or 2.0 is Embracing Change…. If you can understand this dynamic the other 6 bullets will be easier to embrace. Also an effective leader HAS to communicate using the medium of the people he/she is leading. Otherwise there would be huge disconnect. Thanks for sharing

   Comment by tim fries - Feb 12, 2010 @ 04:50 PM

7. good stuff

   Comment by nadine.w - Feb 23, 2010 @ 01:30 PM

Share Your Thoughts

	Name (required)
	Email (will not be published) (required)
	Website
Please enter the word you see in the image below:
Remember my personal information
Notify me of follow-up comments?